5 Reasons 11:00 AM Worship Services Are Disappearing

Wally, I agree with TylerR that you are right on. But note your comment:

Various formats for spiritual growth do change over time. A fundamental question is “Why are we seeing some of those changes now?”

That was not the question Thom Rainer was raising. It was, rather, “why did we start church at 11 in the first place?” That is the question I addressed.

What we should do in our day and age is a different matter, although there still is a good argument for an 11 (or 10:30 or 10:45) start time for some people.

And this is the elephant in the room. There no longer is a “normal” for everyone. In big churches, I could even see starting a midnight service for third shift workers who are used to being up for a graveyard shift.

I, personally, question whether aiming the church at Millennials is the best approach. Every generation gets more and more dysfunctional as the ramifications of the breakup of the family and rejection of Christian values keeps trickling down. The early church sought to snatch the elect from the mainstream, and I think our seeker-sensitive approach that worked at first will no longer work unless the essentials of the faith are further compromised. We have to accept that being a Millennial and a dedicated Christian at the same time means being perceived as even more odd than being a dedicated Christian and a Baby Boomer or member of Generation X. But, I suppose, this is a tangent.

….part of me responds with a proverb from my line of work by Deming; “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” In other words, a lot of us have had what we thought were beautifully designed processes to give us great Sunday School teachers, teaching, and the like…but sometimes our view isn’t what those who visit us, and who would visit us, think. To be fair, sometimes it’s simply a matter of God not giving us the increase at that particular time, but I would think a certain amount of “what can I do to better reach these people” is in order too, whether that be prayer, a change in topics, a change in methods, or whatever.

A major issue in these regards that I’ve seen at church and work alike is that the pastor or top management gets a scheme in their heads, and they are bound & determined to implement that scheme and won’t listen to the guys who have to implement it. For example, at a place where I used to work, management drove tiny lot sizes in machining—lots that would finish in an hour or less—on machines that took days to set up. They then wondered why their implementation of the “Toyota Production System” wasn’t working, but a few minutes listening to the machinists would have given them the answer.

Bears some thought, doesn’t it? There just may be reasons that people won’t come to Sunday School, but they will come to something else.

Another thought about hard hearts is that it’s said that Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, which of course kicked off the first Great Awakening, became famous as another pastor realized he wasn’t reaching the hearts of his own congregation. So he decided to shake things up a bit and have a guest preacher, and history tells the results. Might or might not be the right tool in a given setting, but it does illustrate the principle that if what you’re doing isn’t giving you the results you ought to have, consider changing what you’re doing. It also illustrates that fact that heroic measures are not always needed—sometimes it’s simply a minor change that lets people know you’re thinking of them.

There is a tendency for us to look at the past and generalize that the spiritual condition of our more recent Christian forefathers was much much greater than it is today. But really, what evidence do we have of this?

Of course there was a time in America when church attendance was higher and people abstained from work on the Lord’s Day. But are we sure that those works were completely attributable to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit? Is there any chance that those works were actually the fruit of those merely trying to fit into and to be accepted by a certain religious culture?

I’m definitely willing to believe that the body of truly regenerate believers in Jesus Christ has gotten colder spiritually over the decades. But no one can deny that what has also happened in society is that the pressure of maintaining external pretenses to be a Christian have been completely cast off. The observation of declining ministry buy in within congregations is surely a result of both. What impact each of the forces have is certainly still up to debate.

I’m also more skeptical of the theory that there was ever a “gilded age” of Christianity in America where the entire church was unified in growing in Christ, fulfilling His commandments, and making disciples of all nations. If this was ever the case, when were the fruits of this genuine submission to Christ and obedience to Him reaped? We’d have to go a little farther back than this past century, certainly past the WWII and baby boom generations, since the lasting harvests of these two more recent generations have been under-whelming.

I’m more of a proponent of the theory that throughout the church age, obedience to Christ has been a very, very major struggle to the true body of believers, and that we cannot look to a generation or time period and hold them up as paradigms of true obedience. If we can force ourselves to peel back our nostalgic ideal of the purity of the early church, we find that even it struggled mightily. The writings of Paul contain much more rebuke, correction, and instruction than praise.

I’m very grateful that there is now no societal pressure to conform to the veneer of Christianity. It has helped separate the wheat from chaff. Church leaders must use this knowledge wisely, and target ministries to evangelize the “chaff” as well as building up the wheat. Sunday School and evening services may not be the best ministries for this type of activity.

I’m also grateful for churches willing to reconsider the SS, SUN AM, SUN PM, WED, paradigm in favor of something more effective. The question of whether or not a church has the right number of services and right service times is only tangentially biblical. The real question is whether the body is growing in Christ. Many churches have the “right” structure, but are, in fact, dead, since no growth (spiritual. not numeric) is happening.

JBL wrote:

I’m also more skeptical of the theory that there was ever a “gilded age” of Christianity in America where the entire church was unified in growing in Christ, fulfilling His commandments, and making disciples of all nations. I

You are so right. We have never been a Christian nation in the true sense, and I am not among those who confuse the flag with the cross.

I happen to be a fanatical fan of the music of the 1920s and early 30s— and old time radio. Although America was never a Christian nation, what many people do not understand today is that America was a REGIMENTED nation where ROUTINES reigned.

For example, women would do their laundry on Monday. Not Tuesday, and certainly not Sunday. Italian families would have spaghetti twice a week on the same days. Dads earned the living, moms stayed home and took care of the family’s needs. We had a certain standardization, for better or worse. There was child abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and unfaithfulness within this framework. But people remained married, if, for no other reasons, than the kids and economic reasons. Most families were probably happy and not like this, although there is no real way of knowing.

People grew up and married — except for perhaps some single women who became teachers, nurses, or secretaries (because there were more women than men). They reared children, and the children were spanked when they misbehaved and had chores to do. There were exceptions, and couched in this framework was all manner of evil. I am saying that we no longer have structure or even expectations. And when people are raised in partial and ever-changing families, it damages people more than if they were raised in at least fairly decent traditional families.

I don’t see how anyone can deny this.

[Ed Vasicek]

Larry Nelson wrote:

My point: Statistics say that 30% to 35% of people who are employed are working on Sundays.

Yes, but that means that 2/3 of all people are off. And, when church services first started around 11 AM years ago, I would guess that half that percentage worked on Sundays. Stores were closed. Many gas stations were closed. Fewer people went out to eat.

I don’t know if your comments are just about the 40-hour week,or are somehow connected to the origin of the 11 AM service?

What I wanted to illustrate is that Christians and non-Christians alike rely upon and depend upon some vital services being provided by those who work on Sundays, and in some cases Christians are even a driving force (“Who wants to go to Golden Corral after church?”) behind non-vital services being provided by those who work on Sundays.

Since we’re “part of the problem,” it would seem disingenuous if we were to suggest that “Christians should not work on Sundays” (which in essence is something I regularly heard in my younger days). Unless anyone wants to say that some beneficial jobs should be categorically off-limits to Christians (picture no, or at least fewer, Christians doctors, or nurses, or police officers), then it seems reasonable to me that we are willing to provide (or at least are accepting of) some alternative service times that break out of the traditional mold.

I grew up in a strict “Three to Thrive” atmosphere. “Good Christians” didn’t miss any services due to work schedules. If there was ever any potential for conflict, one was expected to find another job.

Today, I know (in my large church and elsewhere) many godly, fine Christian men and women who work as said “doctors, or nurses, or police officers” (just for examples) who might happen to be performing or assisting with an emergency surgery on any given Sunday, or who might be patrolling a local neighborhood in their squad car, helping to ensure the safety and security of its residents.

Perceiving a need for at least some alternative, my church started a Saturday evening service in August, 2014. Starting from scratch, it has seen continued growth. Last Saturday, we had 450+ in attendance. Among them were many who were hard at work the following morning, providing the services that both Christians and non-Christians alike either rely upon, or simply expect, on Sundays.

Larry, I hear what you are saying. I guess I was talking about how things came to be so that services were standardized to start between 10:30 and 11 on Sundays. That was a question Thom Rainer asked and I was attempting to answer. I am not arguing against adjusting, just saying that for many people (even today), this is a convenient time.

I think believers can meet any day and any time. Although Sunday is a 2,000 year old tradition, I do not myself see a command in Scripture that says we must meet on Sundays. But, like you, I preferred a time when the cultural pressure was toward church and rest on Sunday, something that we will never enjoy again, I am afraid.

[Ed Vasicek]

I happen to be a fanatical fan of the music of the 1920s and early 30s— and old time radio. Although America was never a Christian nation, what many people do not understand today is that America was a REGIMENTED nation where ROUTINES reigned.

For example, women would do their laundry on Monday. Not Tuesday, and certainly not Sunday. Italian families would have spaghetti twice a week on the same days. Dads earned the living, moms stayed home and took care of the family’s needs. We had a certain standardization, for better or worse. There was child abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and unfaithfulness within this framework. But people remained married, if, for no other reasons, than the kids and economic reasons. Most families were probably happy and not like this, although there is no real way of knowing.

People grew up and married — except for perhaps some single women who became teachers, nurses, or secretaries (because there were more women than men). They reared children, and the children were spanked when they misbehaved and had chores to do. There were exceptions, and couched in this framework was all manner of evil. I am saying that we no longer have structure or even expectations. And when people are raised in partial and ever-changing families, it damages people more than if they were raised in at least fairly decent traditional families.

I don’t see how anyone can deny this.

This is very interesting to me Ed. I appreciate your thoughts here. I see this from your perspective and I see it from another as well.

Yes, in the “old days” (through early 20th century) families stayed together. That was largely due to the fact that women could not get a divorce even if they were beaten every day. Children were not protected to a large extent. In fact, terms like child abuse and domestic abuse were not even on the radar. Abortions were done in secret rather than openly. Affairs were very prevalent but kept quiet and women had no recourse there either.

We could go on to talk about how the poor, employees, children, racial minorities and various other groups were oppressed. Again, this was largely swept under the rug because those that held the power held it pretty unilaterally.

Today, power has diversified. Women have equal rights to divorce and are willing to speak up about abuse. The government now gets involved in child abuse. Previous groups that were oppressed can speak up. As a result, it appears that things have gone a lot more messy. I am not sure that the messiness is all about people getting worse as much as it is about the oppressed finally having a voice. There are signs that in some ways, things have improved in fact. For example, in spite of Trump’s ignorant lies about murder rate being at a 47-year high, the opposite is true. It is near a 50 year low.

So, all in all, I am not sure I can go along with saying that the old ways (what you call regimented) are better for families or society. To me, there were just systems in place to hide evil back then. I am glad they are gone. I am for example glad that children no longer have to grow up in homes watching dads abuse mothers. That is to me probably more harmful than the pain of divorce and single parent situations.

I can’t remember the source, but I remember learning a couple of decades back that church attendance today is….with some anomalies around the 1950s and such, about the same as it ever was. Something like 40% are members, 80% claim faith, and 20% actually are in church on Sunday. Another point of reference, beyond Jonathan Edwards’, is that during our War of Independence, Scots-Irish Carolinians were only church members 9% of the time—source is “Partisans and Redcoats” by Edgar. Yet another is that those nations with state churches fighting in World War One….brought official brothels to the front.

Divorce rates, as well as the rates of unwed parenting, were far lower, and that had its benefits, but I’m (with JBL) glad the 1950s pressure to be in church whether one believed or not isn’t there anymore. In a manner of speaking, historically, Beaver Cleaver went to Woodstock, didn’t he? At around the same time, “Frugal Gourmet” Jeff Smith was a Methodist chaplain and noticed that a lot of the social structures the “hippies” were developing were simply a plea for family. (source, “The Frugal Gourmet Whole Family Cookbook”) In other words, those fifties families were not as effective as we’d like to think.

Note: yes, Smith was a theological liberal, lived apart from his wife, and was credibly accused of sexual abuse by no less than eight men. But his observations may still have some merit.

This is, of course, a long way of saying that as we explore what’s going on with the end of 11am services, as well as the lower significance of Sunday School, that the task of the pastor remains the same today; to reach hearts for Christ. Counting rear ends in seats, or charting when the church meets, seems to be a poor proxy for this.